This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
There is a specification for the |bibcode=
parameter
here. I think it would be worth checking for invalid Bibcodes.
This request was motivated by a discussion that started at User Talk:Citation bot. Pinging Lithopsian. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
In the sandbox using the arXiv bibcode above:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) though I see that edit conflict detection is still broken...
{{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) – 19th character replaced with a colon as a detector test; the link doesn't workI expect that the first character can be limited to the numbers 1 or 2, since the four-digit year of publication of a journal article should always start with 1 or 2. That's just me telling a story, though. I'll scrub through some articles to see if I can find Bibcodes that would not meet these criteria but are listed in the database as valid. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
year (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
journal (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)
Where we cite a work, or journal, which has a corresponding Wikipedia article, we can make the title a link; and we can use |authorlink=
if there is an article about the author. What if there is no article, but there is a Wikidata item? How might we include, and display, the "Q" value, and link to the item?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|authorlink=
anymore but some new parameter specifically for wikidata ids. Otherwise we'd have one parameter that accepts data from two different domains (therefore the citation template — an input form — would fail the
first normal form criteria from database design), which would make it even more confusing for editors learning to read and edit the templates. But it would also be confusing to readers because clicking on the linked author name would sometimes take them to Wikipedia and sometimes to Wikidata for non-obvious reasons (instead of always going to Wikipedia) so this violates the
principle of least surprise in user interface design. But even if we ignored these concerns, why would we even want to link the author's name in such a case? What makes the pros overcome the cons? I certainly see some value in such a link but I also think a convincing argument could be made that it would be a form of overlinking. Even if we did have a whole new parameter for Wikidata ids that displayed separately from the author name (like we do with |doi=
and other document identifiers), a case for overlinking could still be made based on the idea that it's adding clutter.
Jason Quinn (
talk) 07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help). At least half the authors are well-known in arachnology, and could easily end up with Wikipedia articles; the journal already has an article. Adding yet more links/IDs for every author and the journal just seems inappropriate to me, as opposed to a single link to a Wikidata entry for the citation.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 13:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=
if there is an article about the author. Presumably, we are all agreed (or at least have consensus) that these links are useful to our readers, in a number of ways, which is why we provide them. Where there are no no such articles, but we have information in Wikidata, with a human-friendly interface available at Reasonator, linking to one, or the other (whether on the page or in metadata) will be useful in the same ways. I cannot see any good reason why we would deliberately not inform our readers and re-users that we have additional information on something or someone that is cited in an article.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Resolute: My argument is not "it is valuable because it is"; it is "it is of comparable value to the links we already provide". Properties which Wikidata may offer, about an author for whom we have no Wikipedia article, include (but are not limited to):
and of course disambiguation from other, similarly-named, authors. I'm short of time now, but can provide a similar list for works, later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
every author in every citation" should (or will) be linked. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"How might we include, and display, the 'Q' value, and link to the item?"" is "treating everything [I] want as fait accompli". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"How might we include, and display, the 'Q' value, and link to the item?"does not presuppose any particular interface. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
hung up on the user interface. Constructs that
generate preferred tooltipslike this are not a solution, just a mask:
[[d:q42|<span title="Douglas Adams">Douglas Adams</span>]]
[[d:q24|...]]
instead of [[d:q42|...]]
, a common typo or digit transposition:
[[d:42|<span title="Douglas Adams">Douglas Adams</span>]]
{{ifexist:}}
is no help here because it
does not work with interwiki links.mw.wikibase.label( 'Q42')
returns 'Douglas Adams'.|author-link=
is far more appropriate since the target of these links have already passed a notability threshold.
Boghog (
talk) 13:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC
|author-id=
idea proposed by JJ, like others I'm not too fond of the idea of potentially having half the alphabet of superscript links following an author's name in the end. Ideally, a single link should be sufficient, and we already have the |author-link=
parameter to provide such a link, it just needs some further tweaking to improve the appearance.|author-link=
. If we lack an article in the English Wikipedia, but have one in another Wikipedia, we link to that article (via prefix code) until someone has created an article about the corresponding author in the English Wikipedia as well. In both of these cases, all the various authority ID codes (including links to Wikidata) are added to the article about the author (indirectly, this will end up at Wikidata via bots). In case we don't have an article about an author in any Wikipedia, we can use |author-link=
to link to a Wikidata entry instead (if it exists). In this case, the various authority ID codes can be added to the Wikidata entry. As has been pointed out already, links to Wikidata are a bit cryptic, and the Wikidata appearance isn't particularly friendly to readers. However, as was discussed further above, it would be possible for the citation template to pull data from Wikidata in order to improve the local appearance of citations. But instead of directly linking to Wikidata wouldn't it be possible for the citation template to link to some kind of special "author page" as a frontend for Wikidata similar to what we do for ISBNs linking to
Special:BookSources/????????????? (providing the Wikidata knode as a parameter) and then have that page pull the various data from the actual Wikidata entry? This page would only be invoked if a reader clicks on the author link, so it would also address the problem that pulling data from Wikidata is "expensive". Of course, this indirection should only happen, if the link provided by |author-link=
starts with "d:" (for Wikidata).|author-link=
links are starting with a prefix (other than "en:"), it could append the blue "up-arrow" symbol (normally used to indicate external links) to the linked author's name. This would serve as a visual clue for readers that following the link will leave the English Wikipedia (but still point to a sister project, that is, not leave the "Wikipedia universe" in general (by that I count Wikidata as part of the Wikipedia infrastructure)). (Such links were still easily distinguishable from true external links provided via urls, which are shown in [square brackets] (and cause an error message, anyway). If this wouldn't be enough, we could use a different color for links to sister projects.)The relevant advice for me is
build the web: "Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to access relevant information on other pages easily.
" If an author has an entry on Wikipedia, then we usually encourage making the link to their article from a citation. I do understand that not everybody agrees with that, but |author-link=
, |contributor-link=
, |translator-link=
and |editor-link=
all exist and are well-documented at e.g.
Template:Cite book. There can be little doubt that sufficient need has been expressed for those to justify their existence. And after all, if you have a personal dislike of the parameters, you don't have to use them. So, if an author has a Wikidata entry, but no Wikipedia entry, is there any reason to deny the facility to make that link? Surely the justification of "building the web" works applies equally for links to our sister projects, where available, as it does for internal links? --
RexxS (
talk) 16:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
#ifexist
, which is considered undesirable – but maybe this has changed? If not, I suspect it would not be a good idea to have it being called from huge numbers of citations.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=d:...
as
72.43.99.130 already said early in this thread. I am still not convinced that doing so is a good idea, but the ability is there. No change to the software is needed. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
#ifexist
calls?
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
is available. If and when Wikidata does start storing citations and associated author data, the automatic generation of Wiki data links will turn the reference section of articles into a sea of blue. Better to provide a single link from the source to Wikidata. If someone really is interested in a particular author, they can link to the author from Wikidata.
Boghog (
talk) 17:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=
automatically links to the Wikipedia article, so how can "automatic linking of any kind" be wrong? If it's good enough for one project, it's good enough for its sisters. It's already the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure that the author linked to the Wikipedia entry is the same author as the source, so why does this somehow become any more of a problem if the target is Wikidata?|first=
and |last=
, as that would obviously make disambiguation impossible. I was proposing that either (1) the name supplied at |authorlink=
might first check for a Wikipedia article, and in its absence check for a Wikidata entry; or (2) a new parameter might be used to supply a Wikidata link. Either of those two schemes would be feasible; but the former would be more costly, albeit easier to use, whereas the latter would be more robust and easier to code, but would require more effort on the user's part. Frankly, it's not helpful in trying to explore possibilities when you make a blanket opposition with no better rationale than your declaration that it's the editor's duty to do such-and-such. If you had your way, we'd still be crafting citations by hand. --
RexxS (
talk) 23:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
is likely to encounter problems finding the right person at Wikidata. For example:
|author-link=d:Q228024
...|authorlink=
parameter, of course, but that same diligence is already required when we are linking to
John Smith's article on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas around. It may be that there's insufficient demand to make the programming worthwhile, but I don't think it hurts to explore the possibilities and difficulties involved in adding functionality. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk) 20:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.getEntityObject('Q228024').labels[mw.language.getContentLanguage().code].value
returns "John Smith" without the disambiguator which, upon inspection, makes sense: it is just a more verbose (and expensive) version of mw.wikibase.label('Q228024')
. To get what it appears is really wanted, for the local wiki this is marginally better:
mw.wikibase.getEntityObject('Q228024'):getSitelink()
mw.language.getContentLanguage()
elsewhere so this seems like overkill:
mw.wikibase.getEntityObject('Q228024'):getSitelink(mw.language.getContentLanguage().code .. 'wiki')
mw.wikibase.getEntity('Q228024'):getSitelink('ruwiki')
returns: Смит, Джон (капитан) – Smith, John (Captain) according to Google translatemw.wikibase.getEntity()
is expensive when not related to the current page. If John Smith (explorer) is an author, calling mw.wikibase.getEntity()
to find the sitelink in another wiki will bump the expensive parser function counter. That's the toll that the parser troll will exact from you if you want to look outside the local wiki. If you don't need to look outside, perhaps use mw.wikibase.sitelink()
is best.[The] present |authorlink=
[does not] automatically [link] to the Wikipedia article
. An editor must supply an article title.|authorlink=Douglas Adams
does automatically link to the article
Douglas Adams. Obviously the author's name must be supplied, otherwise disambiguation would be impossible. So I'll ask you again: (1) how can "automatic linking of any kind" be wrong? (2) It's already the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure that the author linked to the Wikipedia entry is the same author as the source, so why does this somehow become any more of a problem if the target is the author's Wikidata entry? --
RexxS (
talk) 22:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
is automatic is not true. To me, an automatic link happens without editor intervention. Such a link might result when the module reads |author=
or a |last=/|first=
pair and decides on its own where to link that author name. Clearly this does not happen.|authorlink=Some Name
parameter. In the context of the current discussion, it is pertinent that a link is automatically created to a Wikipedia article with that text, e.g.
Some Name. By analogy to your reasoning above, it is clear to me that the module reads the value of |authorlink=
and decides on its own to create an internal link without editor intervention. Trivial as it seems, clearly that does happen. It is that automatic behaviour that this very discussion is examining, by suggesting that perhaps it might not create that internal link automatically if it would be a redlink, but would search for another usable link from the plain text supplied. It seems you require a greater degree of complexity in your definition of "automatic" than I do. That's OK, I understand your usage now. --
RexxS (
talk) 21:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)|authorlink=
param were blank or omitted. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=[[Douglas Adams]]
, rather than |authorlink=Douglas Adams
. I can see we're thinking about different meanings of the word automatic, but in the context of Jc3s5h's "Automatic linking of any kind based on the author's name is wrong", either of our interpretations refutes his assertion. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
were present, the citation template would link based upon |author=
or |first=
|last=
. This is what I was understanding by "automatic". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
|author=
or |first=
|last=
because of the impossibility of disambiguation in that scheme, since adding disambiguators to an author's name will screw up the metadata for third-party re-users. --
RexxS (
talk) 20:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)I point out that the discussion here about linking authors to wikidata is entirely in the context of use within |author-link=
, and particularly as an alternative where there is no article for a regular wikilink. I further point out that this is not the only possible context. E.g., the |author-id=
parameter I am proposing (
above) could accommodate wikidata links, independently of of |author-link=
s. I don't know if that would be a good idea, but it could be done. Indeed, such linkge could be readily added to my {{
authorid}} template. If wikidata links are a good idea, this could be an easy way to implement them. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
? If you mean more than "technically possible", then I would disagree.
Help:Citation Style 1 indicates not once but twice that |author-link=
should be used for the name of the Wikipedia article about the author. It also says not to use |author-link=
to link to external websites and I think it's open for debate whether cross-project links count as external or not here. I think they should count as external links. The non-WMF interwiki links like
this one to IMDB clearly should count as an external link. It is not so obvious for WMF-run but cross project links like those to Wikidata. {{
Citation Style documentation}} says basically the same as
Help:Citation Style 1 so it is a firm conclusion that the documentation says these links are non-standard and contrary to the existing cite template documentation simply because the Wikidata links are not articles but possibly also because they should count as external links.
Jason Quinn (
talk) 16:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)... a Wikidata item, but no article". What you are saying is that
|author-link=
should (proscription) not be used for this purpose. Which I find persuasive, but you should have raised those points above. What I am suggesting here is an alternative that does not use |author-link=
. An alternative entirely conformable with your comments. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 17:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)I've seen several references where an "|access-date= is missing a URL" error is thrown, however a DOI is present. I've been resolving this error by following the DOI, and using the resultant URL for the |url= parameter. But isn't the point of DOI to maintain links that may change? Can we make |access-date= accept |doi= as an acceptable URL? If so, I'd be interested in helping, to learn how this change would work. - Paul2520 ( talk) 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way, or could a way be made, to track population of the via= parameter: what articles populate it, when was it added, who added it, etc.? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
|via=
. As for when [it was] added, who added it, etc.I don't think so. How would this category be organized? By page name or by the name of the value assigned to
|via=
?|via=
(there are
nearly 18k pages with |via=
in some form or other) so:
|via=Highbeam
and |via=Highbeam Research
,
Module:Citation/CS1 would add the category [[Category:CS1 templates using via|H]]
|via=LexisNexis
: [[Category:CS1 templates using via|L]]
[[Category:CS1 templates using via]]
[[Category:CS1 templates using via Highbeam]]
[[Category:CS1 templates using via LexisNexis]]
|subscription=
into cs1|2 as a replacement for {{
subscription required}}
along with it came |via=
. There is some discussion about |via=
at the template's
talk page. Also
some discussion about implementing |via=
at {{
registration required}}
though that effort seems to have been abandoned. The cs1|2 documentation for |via=
is
here.|via=
but if its still there I didn't find it. Something to do with attribution I think.|via=
there are users who insist on including
information on where they found the source. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
|via=
is suggested by the examples at each of the TWL partner pages, e.g.
Wikipedia:HighBeam.
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Partners lists "Publisher credit using the |via parameter of our citation templates" among the benefits to publishers, though this is at odds with the later statement on the same page that the partnership is not "An agreement to advertise the resource services beyond what is normally done for the use of any source".
Kanguole 05:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)( ←) I'm really enjoying all the enlightened, broad-minded conversation here. It's deeply refreshing to see that people aren't getting bogged down in an implementation-side POV, or forgetting that there are real editors and real corporate entities like JSTOR and Cambridge who are very kindly and generously donating access, and only asking for a wee bit of recognition/documentation in exchange, so that they can have some small feeling that their kind donations are not "completely useless." Having said all that, if you despise the "completely useless" via parameter so much, then get rid of it, make a score of dedicated templates (one for each provider), then spend oh two evenings or so running AWB over every article on Wikipedia that uses "via" and replacing it with the relevant separate template. OR, alternatively, you could just get rid of via without replacing it, and write a nice email to JSTOR and Cambridge and Highbeam and so on and on and on and inform them that providing them with some modicum of feedback is "completely useless." Take your pick. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
|jstor=
) that provides a direct link to the source, "via" is superfluous. However, |doi=
is ambiguous: the doi publisher cannot be determined at first glance, and if it is different than the original publisher, it should be indicated by |via=
, irrespective of the access requirements.
100.33.37.109 (
talk) 01:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)( ←) You are quite nearly frothing at the mouth here. Seriously. Is a single template parameter worth such a fit? [I do recall you from years ago, and recall this same behavior then as well.] What great beast are you so obstreperously preventing access to your template? What great, lurking evil are you fighting here? Why are you flailing around so convulsively? Are you standing heroically alone at the breach against those evil, barbaric hordes who would... what is it we're doing wrong? Giving out credit for freebies? IMO, WP:SWYGT has not been updated to handle this case, but far more importantly, your citing it is a bit more like a child throwing a tantrum than an adult reasoning out the relevant issue. So: what evil are you fighting here, or are you just protecting your pride and.. other personal issues. I admit, this is a great evil on the earth. I shave my head. I tear my clothes. I repent. I did not know I was sinning. Please do forgive me, and please burn out the evil of "via=" from Wikipedia forever and ever... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
There is a specification for the |bibcode=
parameter
here. I think it would be worth checking for invalid Bibcodes.
This request was motivated by a discussion that started at User Talk:Citation bot. Pinging Lithopsian. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
In the sandbox using the arXiv bibcode above:
{{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)— Trappist the monk ( talk) 22:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
( edit conflict) though I see that edit conflict detection is still broken...
{{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
length (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link) – 19th character replaced with a colon as a detector test; the link doesn't workI expect that the first character can be limited to the numbers 1 or 2, since the four-digit year of publication of a journal article should always start with 1 or 2. That's just me telling a story, though. I'll scrub through some articles to see if I can find Bibcodes that would not meet these criteria but are listed in the database as valid. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
year (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
journal (
help){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (
link){{
cite book}}
: Check |bibcode=
value (
help)
Where we cite a work, or journal, which has a corresponding Wikipedia article, we can make the title a link; and we can use |authorlink=
if there is an article about the author. What if there is no article, but there is a Wikidata item? How might we include, and display, the "Q" value, and link to the item?
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 18:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help)|authorlink=
anymore but some new parameter specifically for wikidata ids. Otherwise we'd have one parameter that accepts data from two different domains (therefore the citation template — an input form — would fail the
first normal form criteria from database design), which would make it even more confusing for editors learning to read and edit the templates. But it would also be confusing to readers because clicking on the linked author name would sometimes take them to Wikipedia and sometimes to Wikidata for non-obvious reasons (instead of always going to Wikipedia) so this violates the
principle of least surprise in user interface design. But even if we ignored these concerns, why would we even want to link the author's name in such a case? What makes the pros overcome the cons? I certainly see some value in such a link but I also think a convincing argument could be made that it would be a form of overlinking. Even if we did have a whole new parameter for Wikidata ids that displayed separately from the author name (like we do with |doi=
and other document identifiers), a case for overlinking could still be made based on the idea that it's adding clutter.
Jason Quinn (
talk) 07:11, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help). At least half the authors are well-known in arachnology, and could easily end up with Wikipedia articles; the journal already has an article. Adding yet more links/IDs for every author and the journal just seems inappropriate to me, as opposed to a single link to a Wikidata entry for the citation.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 13:19, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=
if there is an article about the author. Presumably, we are all agreed (or at least have consensus) that these links are useful to our readers, in a number of ways, which is why we provide them. Where there are no no such articles, but we have information in Wikidata, with a human-friendly interface available at Reasonator, linking to one, or the other (whether on the page or in metadata) will be useful in the same ways. I cannot see any good reason why we would deliberately not inform our readers and re-users that we have additional information on something or someone that is cited in an article.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 19:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
@Resolute: My argument is not "it is valuable because it is"; it is "it is of comparable value to the links we already provide". Properties which Wikidata may offer, about an author for whom we have no Wikipedia article, include (but are not limited to):
and of course disambiguation from other, similarly-named, authors. I'm short of time now, but can provide a similar list for works, later. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
every author in every citation" should (or will) be linked. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) ( talk) 20:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"How might we include, and display, the 'Q' value, and link to the item?"" is "treating everything [I] want as fait accompli". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
"How might we include, and display, the 'Q' value, and link to the item?"does not presuppose any particular interface. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
hung up on the user interface. Constructs that
generate preferred tooltipslike this are not a solution, just a mask:
[[d:q42|<span title="Douglas Adams">Douglas Adams</span>]]
[[d:q24|...]]
instead of [[d:q42|...]]
, a common typo or digit transposition:
[[d:42|<span title="Douglas Adams">Douglas Adams</span>]]
{{ifexist:}}
is no help here because it
does not work with interwiki links.mw.wikibase.label( 'Q42')
returns 'Douglas Adams'.|author-link=
is far more appropriate since the target of these links have already passed a notability threshold.
Boghog (
talk) 13:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC
|author-id=
idea proposed by JJ, like others I'm not too fond of the idea of potentially having half the alphabet of superscript links following an author's name in the end. Ideally, a single link should be sufficient, and we already have the |author-link=
parameter to provide such a link, it just needs some further tweaking to improve the appearance.|author-link=
. If we lack an article in the English Wikipedia, but have one in another Wikipedia, we link to that article (via prefix code) until someone has created an article about the corresponding author in the English Wikipedia as well. In both of these cases, all the various authority ID codes (including links to Wikidata) are added to the article about the author (indirectly, this will end up at Wikidata via bots). In case we don't have an article about an author in any Wikipedia, we can use |author-link=
to link to a Wikidata entry instead (if it exists). In this case, the various authority ID codes can be added to the Wikidata entry. As has been pointed out already, links to Wikidata are a bit cryptic, and the Wikidata appearance isn't particularly friendly to readers. However, as was discussed further above, it would be possible for the citation template to pull data from Wikidata in order to improve the local appearance of citations. But instead of directly linking to Wikidata wouldn't it be possible for the citation template to link to some kind of special "author page" as a frontend for Wikidata similar to what we do for ISBNs linking to
Special:BookSources/????????????? (providing the Wikidata knode as a parameter) and then have that page pull the various data from the actual Wikidata entry? This page would only be invoked if a reader clicks on the author link, so it would also address the problem that pulling data from Wikidata is "expensive". Of course, this indirection should only happen, if the link provided by |author-link=
starts with "d:" (for Wikidata).|author-link=
links are starting with a prefix (other than "en:"), it could append the blue "up-arrow" symbol (normally used to indicate external links) to the linked author's name. This would serve as a visual clue for readers that following the link will leave the English Wikipedia (but still point to a sister project, that is, not leave the "Wikipedia universe" in general (by that I count Wikidata as part of the Wikipedia infrastructure)). (Such links were still easily distinguishable from true external links provided via urls, which are shown in [square brackets] (and cause an error message, anyway). If this wouldn't be enough, we could use a different color for links to sister projects.)The relevant advice for me is
build the web: "Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to access relevant information on other pages easily.
" If an author has an entry on Wikipedia, then we usually encourage making the link to their article from a citation. I do understand that not everybody agrees with that, but |author-link=
, |contributor-link=
, |translator-link=
and |editor-link=
all exist and are well-documented at e.g.
Template:Cite book. There can be little doubt that sufficient need has been expressed for those to justify their existence. And after all, if you have a personal dislike of the parameters, you don't have to use them. So, if an author has a Wikidata entry, but no Wikipedia entry, is there any reason to deny the facility to make that link? Surely the justification of "building the web" works applies equally for links to our sister projects, where available, as it does for internal links? --
RexxS (
talk) 16:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
#ifexist
, which is considered undesirable – but maybe this has changed? If not, I suspect it would not be a good idea to have it being called from huge numbers of citations.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 16:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=d:...
as
72.43.99.130 already said early in this thread. I am still not convinced that doing so is a good idea, but the ability is there. No change to the software is needed. —
David Eppstein (
talk) 17:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
#ifexist
calls?
Peter coxhead (
talk) 06:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
is available. If and when Wikidata does start storing citations and associated author data, the automatic generation of Wiki data links will turn the reference section of articles into a sea of blue. Better to provide a single link from the source to Wikidata. If someone really is interested in a particular author, they can link to the author from Wikidata.
Boghog (
talk) 17:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=
automatically links to the Wikipedia article, so how can "automatic linking of any kind" be wrong? If it's good enough for one project, it's good enough for its sisters. It's already the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure that the author linked to the Wikipedia entry is the same author as the source, so why does this somehow become any more of a problem if the target is Wikidata?|first=
and |last=
, as that would obviously make disambiguation impossible. I was proposing that either (1) the name supplied at |authorlink=
might first check for a Wikipedia article, and in its absence check for a Wikidata entry; or (2) a new parameter might be used to supply a Wikidata link. Either of those two schemes would be feasible; but the former would be more costly, albeit easier to use, whereas the latter would be more robust and easier to code, but would require more effort on the user's part. Frankly, it's not helpful in trying to explore possibilities when you make a blanket opposition with no better rationale than your declaration that it's the editor's duty to do such-and-such. If you had your way, we'd still be crafting citations by hand. --
RexxS (
talk) 23:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
is likely to encounter problems finding the right person at Wikidata. For example:
|author-link=d:Q228024
...|authorlink=
parameter, of course, but that same diligence is already required when we are linking to
John Smith's article on Wikipedia. Anyway, I'm just throwing ideas around. It may be that there's insufficient demand to make the programming worthwhile, but I don't think it hurts to explore the possibilities and difficulties involved in adding functionality. Cheers --
RexxS (
talk) 20:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
mw.wikibase.getEntityObject('Q228024').labels[mw.language.getContentLanguage().code].value
returns "John Smith" without the disambiguator which, upon inspection, makes sense: it is just a more verbose (and expensive) version of mw.wikibase.label('Q228024')
. To get what it appears is really wanted, for the local wiki this is marginally better:
mw.wikibase.getEntityObject('Q228024'):getSitelink()
mw.language.getContentLanguage()
elsewhere so this seems like overkill:
mw.wikibase.getEntityObject('Q228024'):getSitelink(mw.language.getContentLanguage().code .. 'wiki')
mw.wikibase.getEntity('Q228024'):getSitelink('ruwiki')
returns: Смит, Джон (капитан) – Smith, John (Captain) according to Google translatemw.wikibase.getEntity()
is expensive when not related to the current page. If John Smith (explorer) is an author, calling mw.wikibase.getEntity()
to find the sitelink in another wiki will bump the expensive parser function counter. That's the toll that the parser troll will exact from you if you want to look outside the local wiki. If you don't need to look outside, perhaps use mw.wikibase.sitelink()
is best.[The] present |authorlink=
[does not] automatically [link] to the Wikipedia article
. An editor must supply an article title.|authorlink=Douglas Adams
does automatically link to the article
Douglas Adams. Obviously the author's name must be supplied, otherwise disambiguation would be impossible. So I'll ask you again: (1) how can "automatic linking of any kind" be wrong? (2) It's already the responsibility of the contributing editor to ensure that the author linked to the Wikipedia entry is the same author as the source, so why does this somehow become any more of a problem if the target is the author's Wikidata entry? --
RexxS (
talk) 22:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
is automatic is not true. To me, an automatic link happens without editor intervention. Such a link might result when the module reads |author=
or a |last=/|first=
pair and decides on its own where to link that author name. Clearly this does not happen.|authorlink=Some Name
parameter. In the context of the current discussion, it is pertinent that a link is automatically created to a Wikipedia article with that text, e.g.
Some Name. By analogy to your reasoning above, it is clear to me that the module reads the value of |authorlink=
and decides on its own to create an internal link without editor intervention. Trivial as it seems, clearly that does happen. It is that automatic behaviour that this very discussion is examining, by suggesting that perhaps it might not create that internal link automatically if it would be a redlink, but would search for another usable link from the plain text supplied. It seems you require a greater degree of complexity in your definition of "automatic" than I do. That's OK, I understand your usage now. --
RexxS (
talk) 21:01, 17 April 2016 (UTC)|authorlink=
param were blank or omitted. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 23:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|authorlink=[[Douglas Adams]]
, rather than |authorlink=Douglas Adams
. I can see we're thinking about different meanings of the word automatic, but in the context of Jc3s5h's "Automatic linking of any kind based on the author's name is wrong", either of our interpretations refutes his assertion. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=y
were present, the citation template would link based upon |author=
or |first=
|last=
. This is what I was understanding by "automatic". --
Redrose64 (
talk) 08:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
|author=
or |first=
|last=
because of the impossibility of disambiguation in that scheme, since adding disambiguators to an author's name will screw up the metadata for third-party re-users. --
RexxS (
talk) 20:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)I point out that the discussion here about linking authors to wikidata is entirely in the context of use within |author-link=
, and particularly as an alternative where there is no article for a regular wikilink. I further point out that this is not the only possible context. E.g., the |author-id=
parameter I am proposing (
above) could accommodate wikidata links, independently of of |author-link=
s. I don't know if that would be a good idea, but it could be done. Indeed, such linkge could be readily added to my {{
authorid}} template. If wikidata links are a good idea, this could be an easy way to implement them. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 21:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
|author-link=
? If you mean more than "technically possible", then I would disagree.
Help:Citation Style 1 indicates not once but twice that |author-link=
should be used for the name of the Wikipedia article about the author. It also says not to use |author-link=
to link to external websites and I think it's open for debate whether cross-project links count as external or not here. I think they should count as external links. The non-WMF interwiki links like
this one to IMDB clearly should count as an external link. It is not so obvious for WMF-run but cross project links like those to Wikidata. {{
Citation Style documentation}} says basically the same as
Help:Citation Style 1 so it is a firm conclusion that the documentation says these links are non-standard and contrary to the existing cite template documentation simply because the Wikidata links are not articles but possibly also because they should count as external links.
Jason Quinn (
talk) 16:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)... a Wikidata item, but no article". What you are saying is that
|author-link=
should (proscription) not be used for this purpose. Which I find persuasive, but you should have raised those points above. What I am suggesting here is an alternative that does not use |author-link=
. An alternative entirely conformable with your comments. ~
J. Johnson (JJ) (
talk) 17:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)I've seen several references where an "|access-date= is missing a URL" error is thrown, however a DOI is present. I've been resolving this error by following the DOI, and using the resultant URL for the |url= parameter. But isn't the point of DOI to maintain links that may change? Can we make |access-date= accept |doi= as an acceptable URL? If so, I'd be interested in helping, to learn how this change would work. - Paul2520 ( talk) 23:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Is there a way, or could a way be made, to track population of the via= parameter: what articles populate it, when was it added, who added it, etc.? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
|via=
. As for when [it was] added, who added it, etc.I don't think so. How would this category be organized? By page name or by the name of the value assigned to
|via=
?|via=
(there are
nearly 18k pages with |via=
in some form or other) so:
|via=Highbeam
and |via=Highbeam Research
,
Module:Citation/CS1 would add the category [[Category:CS1 templates using via|H]]
|via=LexisNexis
: [[Category:CS1 templates using via|L]]
[[Category:CS1 templates using via]]
[[Category:CS1 templates using via Highbeam]]
[[Category:CS1 templates using via LexisNexis]]
|subscription=
into cs1|2 as a replacement for {{
subscription required}}
along with it came |via=
. There is some discussion about |via=
at the template's
talk page. Also
some discussion about implementing |via=
at {{
registration required}}
though that effort seems to have been abandoned. The cs1|2 documentation for |via=
is
here.|via=
but if its still there I didn't find it. Something to do with attribution I think.|via=
there are users who insist on including
information on where they found the source. --
Redrose64 (
talk) 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
|via=
is suggested by the examples at each of the TWL partner pages, e.g.
Wikipedia:HighBeam.
Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Partners lists "Publisher credit using the |via parameter of our citation templates" among the benefits to publishers, though this is at odds with the later statement on the same page that the partnership is not "An agreement to advertise the resource services beyond what is normally done for the use of any source".
Kanguole 05:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)( ←) I'm really enjoying all the enlightened, broad-minded conversation here. It's deeply refreshing to see that people aren't getting bogged down in an implementation-side POV, or forgetting that there are real editors and real corporate entities like JSTOR and Cambridge who are very kindly and generously donating access, and only asking for a wee bit of recognition/documentation in exchange, so that they can have some small feeling that their kind donations are not "completely useless." Having said all that, if you despise the "completely useless" via parameter so much, then get rid of it, make a score of dedicated templates (one for each provider), then spend oh two evenings or so running AWB over every article on Wikipedia that uses "via" and replacing it with the relevant separate template. OR, alternatively, you could just get rid of via without replacing it, and write a nice email to JSTOR and Cambridge and Highbeam and so on and on and on and inform them that providing them with some modicum of feedback is "completely useless." Take your pick. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
|jstor=
) that provides a direct link to the source, "via" is superfluous. However, |doi=
is ambiguous: the doi publisher cannot be determined at first glance, and if it is different than the original publisher, it should be indicated by |via=
, irrespective of the access requirements.
100.33.37.109 (
talk) 01:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)( ←) You are quite nearly frothing at the mouth here. Seriously. Is a single template parameter worth such a fit? [I do recall you from years ago, and recall this same behavior then as well.] What great beast are you so obstreperously preventing access to your template? What great, lurking evil are you fighting here? Why are you flailing around so convulsively? Are you standing heroically alone at the breach against those evil, barbaric hordes who would... what is it we're doing wrong? Giving out credit for freebies? IMO, WP:SWYGT has not been updated to handle this case, but far more importantly, your citing it is a bit more like a child throwing a tantrum than an adult reasoning out the relevant issue. So: what evil are you fighting here, or are you just protecting your pride and.. other personal issues. I admit, this is a great evil on the earth. I shave my head. I tear my clothes. I repent. I did not know I was sinning. Please do forgive me, and please burn out the evil of "via=" from Wikipedia forever and ever... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2016 (UTC)